Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/08

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Zeiss! No -- Leica; No, Zeiss; No -- Bush! No... Gore...
From: Douglas Cooper <douglas@metaversalstudios.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 11:19:05 -0500

At 12:01 AM 11/8/00 -0800, you wrote:

>(Of course the most perfect set of connoisseur lenses ever made are the
>Biogon-Planar-Sonnar 28-45-90 for the G cameras. Too bad the darn things
>don't attach to better cameras....  ;-)
>
>- --Mike


I'm surprised to hear you say this, Mike, as you've said on numerous 
occasions that blur is especially important to you in the evaluation of a 
lens, and that Zeiss lenses rarely have good bokeh.  (I agree, by the way; 
sold my Contax SLR.)   Are the G lenses better in this regard, or is it 
simply that their other virtues outweigh this deficiency?  Myself, I have 
to say that nothing in my experience comes close to the Leica M line, 
pre-aspherical.  I haven't tried all of the new Konica lenses, and they may 
well give the Leicas a run for their money (although the Hexar's hardly a 
"line" yet); and my limited experience of Canon LTMs suggests that they can 
perhaps hold their own with early Leica optics, but the M line seems 
uniformly superb.  (This should win me at least a couple of friends on this 
list.)  I also have no experience of the R lenses -- I must confess that 
I've never heard a reasonable defense of the R bodies, so I've never given 
them much thought.  (This should lose me these new friends on the list.)

cheers,

DC